Legal Aspects of Criminal Justice System

Jury nullification is basic entirelyy the situation wherein a authoritative guilty person was disposed the judgment not guilty by the set of jurors or the dialog box itself when that person is believed to be guilty of the crime he or she is accused of. The Jury tends to play an baseborn role against his or her job which is to give justified finding of fact to a certain crime and and so apply an altered decision into the accused.An example of a jury nullified cheek is the famous case during the year 1735. This case is the trial case of John Peter Zenger charged by the former governor of the natural York Colony, William Cosby. In this case, the verdict given by the Jury to Zenger is a not guilty verdict wherein all the facts where given that Zenger did all the crime which he is accused of (Institute, 1992).An different case is the case of William draw up wherein he as the accused was acquitted by the set of juries. This happened in the year 1670 in capital of the United Kingd om his case was Preaching Quakerism. During this period four from the twelve chosen jurors made a non-guilty verdict which direct them to spend time in prison and pay the damages they created but out front they get into imprisonment, mavin of the judges made his plea and was able to nullify the unjust law (Institute, 1992).In the negative grimace of the defendant, his compensates were violated because the sixth amendment says that a defendant should not be deprived and even oppressed from his profound concerns (FindLaw, 2008). When jury nullification runs the defendant will be deprived from knowing whats really chance in the court wherein the case holds his/her right to freedom. The nullification of the Jury to the case could also affect the value final exam decision about the defendant if he or she will be acquitted. Thus, the judge final judgment could henceforth be negative for the accused or the defendant because the judge may prize that the defendant just influenced t he Juries who voter turnoutd for the accused persons acquaintance.References FindLaw. (2008). Right to a Speedy and Public visitation Electronic Version. Retrieved January 16 from http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/02.html.Legal Aspects of Criminal Justice SystemFelony Disfranchisement is a process in which a convicted criminal lose his or her rights and property. It is also considered as civil death, whereby these persons would lose all rights and claim to property, including the right to vote.The felony disenfranchisement law was first implemented way back in ancient Romans and Greeks. going the convicts right, confiscation of private properties and exposure to death are consequence of having a felony shew during the earlier times. The Englishman gave birth to the disfranchisement of offenders in America.Nowadays, only three states in America continue to impose felony disfranchisement and the illegibility to vote to all citizens with a felony record whi ch are states of Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia. Conviction with felony record has its own consequence merely divergent from the felony disfranchisement implementation in earlier times. Today, felonies dont have the right to vote, serve on a jury or even hold a position in the government which manipulates them different from an workaday people, the lowest of the citizens.The implantation of felony disfranchisement is one of the political anomalies in America or even in other countries. As we all know, voting is a not only a privilege but a right that any man wants to exercise.The United States Government eliminates constraints on voting whether by court or legislative action. The citizens convicted by felony are the only few who can not exercise their voting rights during elections (Rockville, 1986). nigh of the pro disfranchisement are arguing that giving the ex-felons a right to vote may serve as a risk in the society since an election process is a essential activity for the sc hooling of a state.Pro disfranchisement cited some problems that may occur when a offender is given a right to cast a vote. They say that it may harm the law if changed, voter fraud may occur or the purity of ballots may be affected (cited in Human rights Watch). These reasons are some of those who make the ex-felons unrightfully voters. A good enough example of a convicted felon was Richardson v. Ramirez who was barred from voting without violating the Fourteenth Amendment. Richardson v. Ramirez leaves open a valid claim that the unequal enforcement of disfranchisement laws is unconstitutional.Plaintiffs argued that California counties different interpretations of infamous crime meant that the law was unequally applied. The U.S. overbearing Court sent the case back to the California Supreme Court to decide this issue, but before it could rule, California changed its law (Brennan 2007). A guy named Baker v. Pataki from New York City was a very good example of purposeful racial di scrimination having him convicted by felony. A mixed Afro-American Latino challenged New Yorks federal court who denied the votes of several felony offenders, in prison or on parole. He tell that these act is merely against the Voting Rights enactment 1968 since it has a disproportionate racial impact. The lower court withal dismissed the case reasoning that the U.S Supreme court in Richardson v. Ramirez upheld the disfranchisement law. They also found that Voting Rights Act did not apply to such laws.The effect of felony disfranchisement law has been drastically implemented in the past cytosine since there are increasing numbers of criminals that are sentenced by felony they are sent to prison and chit there for a long time. Voting is a right, and equal right must(prenominal) be given to a citizen even if he or she was an offender of the law. Issues in racial discrimination and human rights must take into consideration.ReferencesHuman Rights Watch and the Sentencing Project ( October 1998). Losing the vote the impact of felony disenfranchisement laws in the united states. Retrieved January 17, 2008, from http//www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/Westat, Inc. (December 1986). diachronic corrections statistics in the united states.